kiev4a
Well-known
I would take most statements about scanner sharpness (or lack thereof) with a grain of salt. Unless you enlarging to poster size you probably aren't going to notice the difference between scanner A and Scanner B. A more important factor is how a scanner handles shadow detail. And in a lot of cases that is more a matter of operator than the machine or software.
peter_n
Veteran
Stu that's exactly what I use my SD IV for and I am a happy camper. Also I like the fact that you can get your B&W negs just developed with no contact prints or regular prints, then index scan a 6 negative snip in the SD IV and you get 6 fairly large "contacts" that enables you to determine which negatives are worth scanning "properly". The Minolta software is actually pretty good and all you need if you are not printing from the scans.Stu :) said:
T_om
Well-known
?????
So, turn it off. When scanners offer ICE capability, they also offer a little button that turns it on and off.
At any rate, I am glad you found a scanner to fit your needs. I'm not familiar with the one you picked, but I am sure almost any dedicated film scanner will please you MUCH more than any flatbed.
Tom
GeneW
Veteran
Digital Contact Sheets
Digital Contact Sheets
I think you'll enjoy a dedicated film scanner as well. If you're using Photoshop, there's a very nice Contact Sheet action built in that you can set up any way you want. I create mine in landscape mode in six rows of six. I pop a jpg of each scan into a temp directory, point PS at it, and let it create a contact sheet that is 8x10 at 200dpi. This is good enough for printing and it's just right (for me) for screen viewing. I can zoom in on individual frames. I also add camera/film/development info to the metadata in the contact sheet.
I'm computer oriented and enjoy browsing through my contact sheets online. I store the finished contact sheets in their own separate directory for ease of access.
Gene
Digital Contact Sheets
I think you'll enjoy a dedicated film scanner as well. If you're using Photoshop, there's a very nice Contact Sheet action built in that you can set up any way you want. I create mine in landscape mode in six rows of six. I pop a jpg of each scan into a temp directory, point PS at it, and let it create a contact sheet that is 8x10 at 200dpi. This is good enough for printing and it's just right (for me) for screen viewing. I can zoom in on individual frames. I also add camera/film/development info to the metadata in the contact sheet.
I'm computer oriented and enjoy browsing through my contact sheets online. I store the finished contact sheets in their own separate directory for ease of access.
Gene
Biber
Established
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
hjfischer
Texas Rangerfinder
Thanks to Joe, I have literally saved, for the time being, about $500-the price of a new scanner. The link he referred me to enabled me to download the updated software and driver needed for my Canoscan scanner to function with Windows XP. Works perfectly and now I won't have to throw out the scanner with my old Windows ME computer. Don't know what I would do without you guys and this great forum.
GeneW
Veteran
HJ, it's a great feeling to be able to re-use good equipment. Glad to hear it worked out!
Gene
Gene
back alley
IMAGES
i have to credit gene on that. he found that link for me and i was able to use the scanner with my xp also.
it's good to be part of the 'pass it on' process.
joe
it's good to be part of the 'pass it on' process.
joe
djon
Well-known
Ice won't help B&W but having it isn't a bad thing, in the event you do get around to shooting color or scanning for a friend.
Having recently owned two (2) 5400II scanners I'll say with relief that my Nikon V is an excellent and rugged tool and the Minoltas were, uh, um.....not. However I'm sure a functional Minolta will scan equvalently to the Nikon, if you happen to come across a functional Minolta scanner.
Comparing 5400II, Nikon V, and Epson 3200 (flatbed) scans of the same negative at maximum resolution (purported 5400, 4000, and 3200ppi...I don't believe any of them), yes, the flatbed is at a disadvantage. But it's certainly capable of handsome prints at and above A4 with most images...particularly with portraits. It's very good with 6X6 and 6X9 as well, especially with the custom anti-newton carrier. I understand the 4870 is significantly better, but the 4990 may only be a slight improvement over the 4870, and not in sharpness.
Having recently owned two (2) 5400II scanners I'll say with relief that my Nikon V is an excellent and rugged tool and the Minoltas were, uh, um.....not. However I'm sure a functional Minolta will scan equvalently to the Nikon, if you happen to come across a functional Minolta scanner.
Comparing 5400II, Nikon V, and Epson 3200 (flatbed) scans of the same negative at maximum resolution (purported 5400, 4000, and 3200ppi...I don't believe any of them), yes, the flatbed is at a disadvantage. But it's certainly capable of handsome prints at and above A4 with most images...particularly with portraits. It's very good with 6X6 and 6X9 as well, especially with the custom anti-newton carrier. I understand the 4870 is significantly better, but the 4990 may only be a slight improvement over the 4870, and not in sharpness.
djon
Well-known
... the Nikon and inkjet is as sharp as a superb optical enlarger. It does exaggerate B&W grain, but that's easily reduced or eliminated using gaussian blur, followed by USM....this can actually increase sharpness from an overly grainy neg if it's done intelligently.
Also, no, it's not true that lower resolution scans rival higher resolution scans...unless you're printing undemanding little prints, such as 6X9.
Also, no, it's not true that lower resolution scans rival higher resolution scans...unless you're printing undemanding little prints, such as 6X9.
hjfischer
Texas Rangerfinder
Gene: I thank you also for your help in resurrecting my Canon scanner.